Mr. URDANETA-ARBELAEZ declared that when the spokesmen of the smaller nations appeared on the rostrum before the Assembly, from where their voices could be heard throughout the world, they were imbued only with an ardent desire to tell the truth as they saw it, and fully determined to speak the truth with courage and frankness. Nations which did not have great wealth at their command and which could not back their opinions with material force did not constitute a threat to world peace. At the same time they did not have the means of saving humanity from the scourge of war. For example, all Colombia could do was to express its desire to play its part in international co-operation and to assume its responsibilities by making its voice heard in defence of justice, by warning the world of dangers wherever it saw them and by calling attention to any defects it might notice in the working of the institutions intended to safeguard the peace.
Two thirds of the inhabitants of the world possessed no armaments. They, however, formed the majority of public opinion, that opinion with which it was dangerous to clash, because, sooner or later, truth would out and selfishness and despotism, despite their power, in the end would yield to the weight of public opinion.
The present Assembly was meeting in an atmosphere of expectation and anxiety. The circumstances of the moment recalled in many respects those which had led up to the last world tragedy and, rightly or wrongly, the whole of humanity was hopeful that the United Nations would be able to find a solution which would mean peace for all men of good will.
Mr. Urdaneta-Arbelaez wondered whether that hope was really well founded, as some of the problems which had been submitted to the General Assembly had been turned over to it because the institutions most competent to deal with them had proved to be powerless to do so. Other questions on the agenda were in reality praiseworthy and interesting efforts to improve the structure and working of the United Nations if possible. Still others had to do with the improvement of the health and well-being of mankind, but the most urgent problem, the one of greatest concern to the world, was not to be found on the agenda of the General Assembly,
The speaker wondered whether it were necessary for that very important question to be submitted to the consideration of the United Nations or not, for, so long as it remained unsolved, all the efforts that body might deploy to ensure the peace of the world would be made in vain, and that fact confirmed what the Secretary-General had so convincingly said in his annual report; namely, that the existence of the United Nations presupposed agreement among the great Powers. That Organization had not been formed to establish peace but to maintain it once it had been established. If peace did not exist in fact, the task of the United Nations would seem to be an almost impossible one. There was no way in which a thing which had not yet come into being could be preserved.
The problem of Berlin was to be submitted to the Security Council, and probably to the General Assembly at a later stage. That meant that the United Nations was going to find itself confronted with reality. Its ability to acquit itself of its task would be put to the test and the world would thus learn just how sincere certain States had been when they had signed the Charter at San Francisco. It was going to discover whether they had signed it with a sincere desire to live up to its provisions or whether they had done so solely for the purpose of paralysing the work of the Organization or utilizing it for their own ends.
As regards the admission of new Members, the Colombian Government considered that the only principle which, under the terms of the Charter, applied to that question was the following: all peace-loving States which accepted the obligations imposed by the Charter, and which were ready and willing to carry out those obligations were eligible for membership in the United Nations. No other considerations should apply and it would be a violation of the principles of the Charter to refuse admission to a State on account of its social order or the political ideology in which such order was inspired. It would be even more serious if membership were refused a peace-loving State because it was on good or bad terms with one or other of the great Powers. The United Nations should have a universal character and, consequently, should be composed of the greatest possible number of States, so that all might co-operate in the task of safeguarding peace.
With regard to the question of the independence of Korea, the position of Colombia was clearly defined. At its 112th plenary meeting on 14 November 1947, by a vote of forty-three nations, the Assembly had established a Temporary Commission on Korea. The functions of the latter had been clearly defined. Despite the obstruction of the USSR, the Commission had faithfully carried out the task allotted to it. If then, under such circumstances, the General Assembly did not give its unqualified approval to the work of the Commission, it would in fact be renouncing its own authority and admitting the existence within the Assembly itself of the privilege of the veto, which existed only in the Security Council.
As for the voting procedure in the Security Council, it was quite evident that the manner in which that procedure had been followed, and the excessive use of the veto, had often rendered that body powerless, even on purely procedural questions. It was obvious that, if such a practice were to continue, the most important organ of the United Nations would lose prestige in world opinion and States would no longer have any faith in its action. On the other hand, it was easy to understand the arguments in favour of the veto, and to realize that the great Powers could not accept a situation in which they might be obliged against their will, at any moment, to take measures to their prejudice. The two aspects of the question could, however, be reconciled without necessarily amending the Charter, and for the moment it would be sufficient to try to find a correct interpretation of the text in accordance with the true spirit of the Charter.
Perhaps, when the case of the veto seemed imminent, it might be possible to make compromise between the permanent members of the Council easier, by avoiding its use at that meeting and deferring the final decision, in order to give the States parties to the dispute time to come to an agreement. Then again, when the differences were as to whether the question under consideration was procedural or not, it might be well to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, not in order that the views of that body might be enforced, which might have serious consequences, but in order to oblige the refractory State to declare itself against the opinion of the highest authority on the legal interpretation of the Charter. Such a method might perhaps lessen the drawbacks of the excessive use of the veto, while in no way detracting from its effectiveness. Colombia would ask for the adoption of some such formula.
As a member of the Security Council, Colombia had taken part in the discussions of the Atomic Energy Commission, and had been deeply disappointed to have to admit that its deliberations had ended in complete failure. Where such a serious matter was concerned, the world could not be left in a state of uncertainty and anxiety. The Assembly should take steps to settle the disagreement. The Colombian representative feared, however, that it would be impossible for the General Assembly to take any effective measures, since it was only the great Powers who could settle the problems separating them. From the very beginning Colombia had stated in the Commission and would reiterate again that it was not possible to begin by taking steps to prohibit atomic weapons and destroy those already in existence and after that to establish an organ of control. The reverse procedure would appear to be the logical one to follow. If that were not done, it was difficult to see who should decide which weapons were to be prohibited, which were to be destroyed, and where they were to be found.
With regard to the question of Spain, which the Assembly had referred to the Security Council in accordance with resolution 114 (II) of 17 November 1947, and which the Council had decided not to include in its agenda on 25 June 1948, the Colombian delegation concluded that the Council had implicitly recognized that the question did not represent a threat to peace, and that, in those circumstances, any recourse to Article 41 of the Charter would be based solely upon the character of the political regime in Spain, and would therefore be an interference in the domestic affairs of a State and hence a violation of the Charter itself.
Where freedom of information was concerned, Colombia adhered to the terms of its Constitution: freedom of information was ensured, but with due regard for the responsibility required by law in every country.
Such was the position of Colombia on certain items of the agenda. Its views on the other items would be made known at the appropriate time in the course of the discussions.
Finally, Colombia, faithful to its unshakable democratic tradition, was convinced that it was only under a system of freedom based on moral law that the world could regain balance and stability. Freedom must be ensured for the human person and for States, freedom of conscience, of speech and of association, freedom of work, freedom of movement and of trade. Every individual, as well as every State, must be able to profess and to practice those principles which he considered right, so long as he did not try to impose them upon others by force or guile.
By their very nature, man and all the institutions he had created tended towards freedom. Lack of freedom brought anxiety, quarrels, and breaches of the peace. Peace could only exist in the pure light of freedom and justice. Through its support of those ideals the United Nations would truly become «the conscience of the world», as a French writer had so aptly said.
The fact that the Assembly was meeting among the French people allowed the world to glimpse a ray of hope. The land of France had been the cradle of liberty; the United Nations must not dig its grave there.